Why Is Feinstein Going After Squirrel Hunting Guns?

According to Congresswoman Dianne Feinstein (D), this is an “assault weapon.” The rest of us regard this .22 as a squirrel hunting rifle. Are BB guns next?

The Assault Weapons Ban List Includes Some Curious Picks

You have to hand it to Congresswoman Dianne Feinstein. She’s etched out a 20-plus year career, paid for by taxpayers, in which she gets to act out what appears to be a delusional fantasy.

Her latest hallucinations were manifested during a sensational press conference on January 24, 2013. She called for a ban of 157 specifically-named “assault weapons,” which includes of all things a squirrel hunting gun.

Feinstein knows she can bamboozle most Americans. People not acquainted with firearms will read her list and not spend one iota of effort to think critically about them.

If a gun’s on the list, it must be evil. No one “needs” it.

Now, I don’t buy into the notion that the guns of law-abiding citizens should be banned because one happened to be used in the commission of a crime. Even so, what no rational person can explain is why Feinstein is targeting guns like the Smith & Wesson M&P 15 22LR — which if you’re a tree-dwelling rodent with a bushy tail is one very scary gun.

Gun Digest readers know the .22LR rimfire is an effective small game cartridge. It’s designed for shooting rabbits or for target practice — and the competitive shooting sports.

According to Congresswoman Dianne Feinstein, this Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Model CF20 is an evil “assault weapon…”

I’m not suggesting guns chambered in .22LR don’t need to be treated with the same level of respect as other guns — they most certainly do. But I don’t recollect anyone claiming they were designed “for nothin’ but shooting people.” After all, was that not the purported purpose of this proposed gun ban?

…Yet this Ruger Mini-14 Tactical, the Model GBCP, was not specifically named by Feinstein. Can you tell the difference?

Of course, the Smith & Wesson .22’s real problem is that it’s condemned right out of the box simply because it looks like an AR-15. It’s a scary-looking gun just asking to be banned.

It is semi-automatic (don’t tell Feinstein about all the tubular-magazine fed semi-auto .22s out there) and it has a “clip” (ignoramus speak for “mag.”). Abandoning even pretended pretexts about keeping kids safe, the inclusion of this very effective squirrel rifle in Feinstein’s list proves beyond a shadow of a doubt for the watching world the blatant intellectual dishonesty of this cosmetic gun ban — a ban built upon manipulation and exploitation of tragedy for political gain.

Not only that, but the fact that the AR-15s on her list (those commonly chambered in .223 Rem. or 5.56 NATO) are quite literally the most popular predator hunting rifles in use today — for varmint hunting of coyotes, fox and other furbearers — flies in the face of the Congresswoman’s claim to be protecting hunting rifles.

It should come as no surprise, then, that Feinstein chose to smear the Barrett M107A1 and M82A1 .50 caliber rifles as well, which weigh about as much as an outboard motor and are just about the most impractical guns any would-be criminal could ever choose. Imagine someone trying to lug around a five-foot long, 30-pound rifle that costs between $5-10 per round to shoot.

Politicians have been looking for excuses to go after .50 caliber rifles for years and, since they can’t find them used in any crimes, the new tactic is to simply make an assertion that they are “assault rifles” by virtue of their being semi-automatic and thus need to be banned.

It’s the same thing with the third exhibit on Feinstein’s list. The Ruger Mini-14 Tactical M-14/20CF, which is only differentiated from Ruger’s Mini-14 Tactical M-14/20GBCP model in that it sports a scary-looking (her opinion, apparently) collapsible stock. In every other respect it functions in exactly the same manner. It shoots the same round. At the same rate of fire.

The only thing upstaging this level of deceit and absurdity — not to mention gargantuan waste of taxpayer funds at a time when the country can’t afford it — is the widespread ignorance about firearms underpinning all this that allows these fabrications to be taken seriously in public policy making. It is truly obscene.

Clear-thinking people can conclude only one thing. Even a cursory examination of the guns being targeted by congress shows Feinstein got tripped up in her own subterfuge. It reveals to everyone that her stated justification for the proposed gun ban is phony.

Make no mistake. This is about pushing an agenda, pure and simple. Hell, even a blind squirrel can see that much.

20 thoughts on “Why Is Feinstein Going After Squirrel Hunting Guns?”

My M1Carbine is on the exempt list but my paratrooper model with the folding stock is not. My Remington 870 Wingmaster is listed in the auto loader section. These people have no idea what they are doing.

Politicians have never let ignorance stand in the way of passing legislation. The Patriot act was voted on 45 minutes after the members of congress were handed copies of this several hundred page document and who can forget Nancy Pelosi’s “we have to pass the Obamacare bill in order to know what is in it”. The saddest part is that we keep sending these two “parties” back again and again and keep thinking they will finally live up to their campaign promises.

Most of the time I don’t want their campaign promises fulfilled. I don’t want the “fundamental transformation of America”. I think the fundamentals of America are the best the world has ever seen: protection of the individual’s natural rights. I watched a Chinese historical drama a month ago and in it was said more than once “It is better to kill a thousand innocents than to let one criminal go unpunished”. I was appalled.

The problems with our politicians is that they demagogue and buy votes with our money. If they are going to buy votes, let them use their own money, not yours and mine.

You got that right. I got back into my firearm hobby 2 years ago after a 35 year hiatus. I had always wanted an AR since I was a teen because I just think they are beautiful as well as function well. So I bought my first a bit less than 2 years ago. But while I was shopping for one and deciding which to get, I found out about California restrictions and how arbitrary the rules are. In CA, certain brands are illegal. DPMS Panther for one is illegal. But a completely identical rifle except the receiver stamped Stag Arms or DPMS Oracle is legal. There is also features that put a rifle into the scary category and therefore regulated, such as having a pistol grip or a flash suppressor. What do these features have anything to do with anything?

I am really frustrated by the current tyranny by the masses. They keep electing fools like Feinstein, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, who in turn torment us law abiding citizens who harm no one and take good care of ourselves and our own families.

First, if they ban all 50 cal. rifles does that include my black powder rifle? It will in Diane F’s eyes. Second she (Diane F.) made a statement last week that shows her ignorance about guns and explains why she want to ban guns with adjustable stocks. She said and I quote. “These stocks alow the rifle to be full automatic rifles.”. What an idiot..

Don’t worry about the firearms in the list in this bill, there is wording that is much worse.
In the definition she wrote for “assault weapon”, it says that one of the characteristics is having a grip. Then it defines a grip as “any grip”. Every modern firearm has a grip, it is the the section of the stock where your trigger hand holds the weapon.
In the bill, it doesn’t matter the shape of the grip. It does define some types of grip, but the wording doesn’t allow for any weapons whose grip is undefined in the bill.
The last individual firearms that did not have a “grip” were black powder hand cannons.
Remember, every pistol has a pistol grip; revolver, semi-auto, single shot, doesn’t matter. So all pistols are banned in this bill.

Forget the firearms on the list, the list is meaningless. Why? Because of the wording of the definition of assault weapon in the bill. Part of the definition is any weapon with a grip. Any type of grip.
The last individual firearms that didn’t have a grip were the old black powder hand cannons. The rifles used in the revolutionary war all had a grip.
A grip is what the shooting hand holds on to. It doesn’t have to be a pistol grip in this bill.
This is written just like ObamaCare, hidden rules and regulations that will have far greater impact that what shows at first glance.

I hate to give you the bad news, but you’ve made an honest mistake. A .22 rifle and handgun were used in the mass school shootings at Springfield Oregon in May 1998 and Conyers Georgia in May 1999. .22 handguns were used in the Virginia Tech mass shooting on April 16, 2007 and at the mass shootings at Santee California on March 5, 2001 and West Paducah Kentucky in 1997. I just think we need to be accurate. Let the gun control crowd do the lying, its what they do best.

That doesn’t mean the Feinstein bill makes any sense. Three studies, including two funded by the Department of Justice, proved that the 1994 to 2004 ban was a failure which had no measurable impact on homicides or mass shootings or the use of “assault weapons” in such crimes. The final study by the Department of Justice, the “Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impact on Gun Markets and Gun Violence 1994-2003″ concluded: “Should [the ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines] be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

Also, your basic old Mossberg 352K semiautomatic .22 squirrel rifle with a 7 round detachable magazine and (gasp!) a folding forend (!!!) might fit in the Feinstein definition of “semiautomatic assault rifle” because the forend might be considered to be “A forward grip”. See the definition of “semiautomatic assault weapon” given in the bill:

‘‘(36) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’
means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
‘‘(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the
following:
‘‘(i) A pistol grip.
‘‘(ii) A forward grip.

‘‘(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable
stock.
‘‘(iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.
‘‘(v) A barrel shroud.
‘‘(vi) A threaded barrel.
‘‘(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed
magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10
rounds, except for an attached tubular device
signed to accept, and capable of operating only with,
.22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

Other than she is a typical grand standing AH politician, I don’t have a clue as to why she does what she does. It’s politics at it’s best. I believe she has a handgun or 2 herself. Not to mention armed body guards at our expense. Golden Rule at work, He/she who has the Gold Rules. Getting like good ole England during the middle ages.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of “assault” weapons know that one of the primary features that makes an assault weapon is the ability of selective fire, either full auto or burst fire (such as the M16 or M4) as well as single shot and “safe”. Just because something “looks” like an “assualt” weapon that does not make it an assault weapon. If I took my 1973 Pinto, removed the body and replaced it with a fibreglass Formula 1 body does that make my Pinto a Formula 1 race car? I seriously doubt it. And just because someone looks like an honest politician, does that make them an honest politician? Of course not because everyone knows that there is no such thing……

In the first place Feinstein doesn’t think, that’s one of her problems. And as far as thinking she’s one of the squirrels, nope…. Everyone, including the squirrels, know that the squirrels are smarter than this career politico.